Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that when someone sues a foreign government in U.S. court over a non-federal dispute — like a property claim — the court must use the same legal rules it would apply if the defendant were a private party, not a special federal standard.
The decision arose from a decades-long effort by the heirs of a Jewish family to reclaim a Pissarro painting surrendered to the Nazis in 1939 and now held by a Spanish government-controlled museum, and it sends the case back for reconsideration under California's rules rather than a federal framework that had favored the museum.
How it got here: The federal district court and the Ninth Circuit applied a federal choice-of-law rule, leading to Spanish law and a ruling for the Foundation; the Cassirer heirs asked the Supreme Court to resolve a split among the federal appeals courts.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Lilly Cassirer inherited a Camille Pissarro painting purchased by her family in 1900. In 1939, she was forced to surrender the painting to the Nazis in exchange for an exit visa to flee Germany. After the war, the painting passed through several hands and was eventually purchased in the early 1990s by the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, a museum entity created and funded by the Kingdom of Spain. In 1999, Lilly's grandson Claude discovered the painting was on display in the Foundation's Madrid museum. Claude and later his heirs sued the Foundation to recover the painting.
The question before the Court
When a family sues a foreign-government-controlled museum to recover property, should the court use the home state's rules for choosing which country's law applies, or a special federal rule?
The Court's answer
Yes — courts must use the forum state's choice-of-law rules (the rules for deciding which jurisdiction's law governs a dispute), not a special federal rule, when resolving non-federal claims against a foreign government in a U.S. lawsuit. Here, that means California's rules apply, not a federal framework.
The reason flows directly from a provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that says a foreign government, when it is not entitled to immunity from suit, must be held liable "in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances." The Court reasoned that the only way to guarantee identical liability is to use the identical choice-of-law rule — because using a different rule could point to a different country's substantive law, and that different law could change the outcome. Since a private defendant sued in California would be subject to California's choice-of-law rules, the Spanish Foundation must be treated the same way.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Families and individuals pursuing claims against foreign-government defendants in U.S. courts — including the many Holocaust-era art restitution cases — will now have their disputes governed by the same state property and tort rules that would apply against any private party. Courts in states like California that have plaintiff-friendly rules for stolen-property claims may reach different results than before.
What changes now
The Ninth Circuit's judgment is wiped out and the case returns to the lower courts, which must now determine the ownership of the painting using California's choice-of-law rules rather than the federal framework they previously applied. If California's rules point to California property law — as the Cassirer heirs argue — the outcome on the merits could change. The Supreme Court expressed no view on who ultimately owns the painting; that question remains open.
What this does not decide
The Court explicitly did not decide whether California's choice-of-law rules would point to California or Spanish property law, nor whether the Cassirer heirs would win under California law. The ruling addresses only which choice-of-law framework applies — the merits of who owns the painting go back to the lower courts.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court began with Section 1606 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which provides that a foreign government stripped of immunity must be held liable 'in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.' The Court read this as a command of strict legal equality between foreign-government defendants and private defendants.
- The Court reasoned that true equality of liability requires using the same choice-of-law rule — the legal formula for deciding which jurisdiction's property or contract law governs the dispute. If a foreign-government defendant and a private defendant faced different choice-of-law rules, they could end up governed by different substantive law, which could produce different outcomes. That would violate Section 1606's equality command.
- In comparable private litigation — a suit to recover a painting, filed in California federal court with only state-law property claims — a court would apply California's choice-of-law rule. This follows from the *Klaxon* principle (a rule from a 1941 case), which says that federal courts hearing state-law disputes borrow the choice-of-law rules of the state where they sit.
- Applying *Klaxon*, any private-defendant suit filed in California would start with California's choice-of-law rule. Section 1606 therefore required the same rule for the Foundation, a Spanish instrumentality — the only way to ensure parity with a private party.
- Even apart from Section 1606, the Court found no justification for creating a special federal common-law rule. Federal common law may displace state law only when 'necessary to protect uniquely federal interests.' Foreign relations is such an interest, but even the federal government itself argued no special federal rule was needed here — and courts outside the Ninth Circuit had long applied state choice-of-law rules in FSIA cases without creating any foreign-relations problems.
- The Ninth Circuit's federal choice-of-law rule had led to the application of Spanish property law, under which the Foundation prevailed. The Court noted that California's rule might instead point to California property law, which could favor the Cassirer heirs — but left that question for the lower courts to answer on remand.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms First Nat. City Bank v. Banco Para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba (462 U.S. 611)
The FSIA was never meant to alter the substantive law governing a foreign state's liability once immunity is removed.
Reaffirms Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co. (313 U.S. 487)
Federal courts hearing state-law disputes must use the forum state's choice-of-law rules, not an independent federal rule.